Well it is Dems bringing up Bill though remember. I think I know why. It's pointless. They can damage Bill, but Hilary isn't running anymore. So why? Because he was a former president. It makes it then very easy to pivot from the former president to the current one.
Which if Trump did do these things he does need to answer for them.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
TBF, I shouldn't have included you there with other Trumpers, vaguely recall you giving Bill the same benefit as Trump in 'it's accusations, nothing has been proven'. Though you did and continue to dismiss his bragging about it.
Unless your mind has changed since about a year ago in regards to Bill?
trump has magic fee-fees forcefield from common ethics. investigate everyone but trump. "mmmmmm yeah give it to me orange daddy i've been a dirty s1ut"
__________________
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
I've very clearly outlined where you've made mistakes.
I quoted two different victims.
This has nothing to do with whether or not you think this is some sort of "my spouse never does wrong" situations. This is about Hillary threatening the victims and enabling Bill.
I outlined very clearly what my intentions were and you ignored it. This is why I say you're bias. This is why I say you have Bill's dick in your mouth while you're pounding away on Hillary. You keep ignoring the very meat of the facts (my point) and acting like this is a pretend discussion about you denying Bill was a predator. The very point of this thread is to show people are NOT denying Bill is a piece of shit. Stop making it about that.
Go back. Read my posts. Look at the content. And forgot for 5 seconds about the pretend "gotcha pretending Bill's not a bad person." No one is playing that game. No one even cares.
Why are both of you missing the point on purpose? Again, this isn't about Hillary being innocent and standing by her man. There is no room for entertaining that position.
If you understood my point then you would not have felt the need to clarify Robtard's initial point which is why I said you missed my point. Now it's getting ridiculous.
I'm clarifying your clarification of my clarification or robtard's clarification of my point of Robtard's original point. Skip all that bullshit. It's getting absurd, now.
I fixed Rob's post that left out the part where Hillary threatened the victims and enabled Bill. Arguments, bla bla bla, etc.
I posted evidence. Arguments, bla bla bla.
So the victims are lying or they are not. You cannot take Robtard's middle ground of "I believe the accusers about Bill being a predator but not the other things the victims said about the Hillary threats."
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
Okay, let's go through this step-by-step because what you tried to get away with irked me a little bit here, dadudemon. You try to overwhelm with superficial explanations you hope will be kafkaesque/contain enough phony complication for people not to casually notice and this has been a debate pattern with you for a quite a long time.
I have nothing against you outright but I certainly believe you're capable of intellectual dishonesty. I am going to break this up into several parts to explain the mistakes you've made here to try to bring you, and perhaps others, clarity into a situation that I think you may have intentionally obfuscated.
PART I: Dadudemon's Strawman Fallacy
So, what I'll do first is define what a "strawman" is. A strawman fallacy is defined as an argument form (informal fallacy) that partially substitutes or even outright replaces your opponent's argument/statement with something they were not arguing in the first place, effectively attacking a "strawman" as opposed to your opponent's argument. It involves mischaracterization and is usually done with the intent to more easily refute your opponent.
So let's focus on where you committed the strawman (you did, in fact, commit the fallacy despite your confident insistence that you didn't) so let's see:
The above quote is from Robtard. He speculates on Hillary's perspective regarding what Bill had done by stating that Hillary most likely bought/believed an explanation from Bill that these woman wanted to come back to Bill for sex or other sexual activities and that they made claims to "spite him."
Robtard clarifies this later on when he says, "I then made it clear about separating the consensual cheating and the rape on Bill's part, meaning while Clinton knew Bill was a cheater, she probably (imo) believed his side of the rape allegations, cos she's his wife."
You respond to his initial opinion with this:
This is logically problematic and here's why:
First off, Robtard was discussing how Hillary approached Bill potentially denying the claims and Robtard did not deny these claims himself, which is necessary for him to have called Bill's accusers "liars" in this context. I will help with this.
EXAMPLE: So Jimmy gets a chocolate bar from the store and runs home to his house where his mother lives with him. The store clerk phones Jimmy's mother and tell her that Jimmy stole the chocolate he came home with. Jimmy's mother does nothing about the store clerk's accusations that Jimmy stole the bar and then speculation stirs in Town X amongst it's fine people.
Now, you are a citizen in Town X and these are the details that you have. Now, let's say you hear this and decide to speculate that Jimmy's mother was probably told by Jimmy that the store clerk had some sort of vendetta against Jimmy and that store clerk lied about him stealing the chocolate bar. Then, you claimed that Jimmy's mother likely believed what Jimmy had said and is why she did not act to punish Jimmy or whatnot.
Now, If Citizen Y came along and claimed you were calling the store clerk a liar when you shared a point-of-view regarding how Jimmy's mom felt and handled the situation, would you say that was sound reasoning or would you call it a strawman? In this situation, the only one misrepresenting the situation regarding the store clerk or even claiming that the store clerk did something dishonest or "spiteful" is Jimmy, not you.
You would have needed to claim something like, "The store clerk lied..." or "I think the store clerk lied..." in order for Citizen Y's assertion that YOU were claiming the store clerk was lying to be logically sound. Otherwise? It is an obvious misrepresentation of your position by Citizen Y and is, therefore, a strawman fallacy.
PART II: Dadudemon's accusations of Robtard committing a strawman and a red herring (the whitewashing assertion included)
So, going into this, we are going to discuss how you asserted Robtard is, in fact, the one who used a strawman fallacy and a red herring to alter or distract from the discussion. Let's begin.
First, we are going to discuss how Robtard used a strawman to compare Bill to Donald to what I assume is whitewash Hillary's enabling. I'd like to point out that you've assumed, in this context, Hillary was in fact enabling Bill Clinton's action without evidence. However, that's not entirely relevant yet so let's continue.
In order for Robtard to have used a strawman (definition is near the top of Part I. You can also look into this yourself using a search engine, for whoever may be reading), in this context, he would have needed to misrepresent your position (since you claim in this post I'm quoting that he does it to you. Y'all can check). Yet, there is little evidence to suggest he even remotely did this. On the first page of this thread, we have numerous posts from users such as these:
By Firefly:
By Silent Master:
By Emperordmb:
By (and this one is important) You, responding to Firefly's post (quoted just above the other two posters):
Other posters also included commentaries about the election and then directly to Bill, as seen on page one, but I have included the ones that are relevant to your claim. So, Robtard comes along and posts this:
So, not only did Robtard not initiate or use the portions of the discussion that involved Trump to mischaracterize (something he would have needed to do to accuse him of strawmanning, among other things) but you commented on the situation even before he did. I say in my initial post that you intentionally misread this because I assume you didn't forget about the discussion beforehand or that you yourself weighed in on it.
Sure, your initial post was exclusively related to Bill Clinton and Hillary's role in that situation. However, the discussion took a different tone and several people were involved, you yourself. You later try to come down on Robtard for steering the discussion away from that but I speculate that if you took issue with this, you would have complained earlier, as opposed to attempting to weaponize his involvement in the already-initiated discussion to take attention away from mistakes you made.
As for your claim that Robtard was essentially using the strawman, that he did not do, to whitewash the blame? Well, the premise is busted from the start because he didn't strawman. Plus, to whitewash is to deceptively absolve someone of blame or responsibility. Since Robtard does not openly think she is responsible (he thinks Bill is) and there is no evidence that she is to blame, the whitewashing claim is incorrect.
We have already covered how Robtard did not using a red herring, as a red herring is terminology relating to how an argument is irrelevant. Yet, it was relevant as you and others were discussing Trump as part of the situation from page one of this thread.
Also, you very plainly called out Robtard for not ackowledging Bill's problems when you proclaimed, in the very same post, he was using a strawman to compare "Bill and Don", which would inherently distract from "Bill's problems" in this context. Like, directly distract from it. This, of course, would be the case if that had happened. It did not.
This comes off as a light form of gaslighting, to be honest. If anyone did this within this entire thread, it is demonstrably you who did it, dadudemon. This is very, very dishonest and manipulative. Cheaply so, but it is the case nonetheless.
PART III: Dadudemon's tergiversating and mispresentation, discussed
Here, I will discuss how you definitively weasel-word and tergiversate in order to escape from the strawman and broken point you had previously made and it... well, it's something, to say the least:
This is completely untrue. Sure, you didn't come out and directly SAY Robtard was defending Bill being a sexual predator (you'll find out why I named this chapter "dadudemon's tergiversating") but you implied it directly. And I mean directly. We will go back to this quote to discuss that, since we've already used it to outline your strawman.
Firstly, you proclaim Robtard wants to call all of his accuser's liars to "besmirch Billy's good name." You secondly imply Robtard is okay with accepting Moore and Spacey's accusers as predator but he does not with Bill Clinton. Thirdly, you have the final portion of this post which has you saying: "It was consenual [sic], Robtard swears!" There are THREE direct implications here that you are claiming Robtard is defending Bill Clinton. Then, you come back to say, "Oh, I never SAID that!" This is incredibly weak and is classic weasel-wording.
Hell, you even tell Robtard to admit Bill is a sexual predator, even though several times during the course of this thread, he has claimed he believes that. This implies he is denying that Bill is/was a sexual predator but he didn't. You thought he did and it's likely one of the reasons why you initially strawmanned his position. Then again, you're a bit all over the place because you told him to admit that Bill was a sexual predator but then said:
To digress for a moment, this snippet right here?
Is not evidence Hillary was thanking her to keep quiet. When she thanks the accuser for "everything she does", this comes off as frustration that she knew Bill was sleeping with these women, not that he assaulted them. Hillary also called her a "bimbo" for years, likely because she was irritated that, I don't know, she was under the impression someone had been sleeping with her husband? This is not evidence that Hillary was complicit, nor is it proof Robtard is calling Hillary a liar and I think you know this. I mean, it even comes with ridiculous exaggerations from you, like this:
You're doing everything in your power here to distance yourself from the reasoning errors you made several times during this discussion.
No, but you have very clearly manufactured where Robtard made mistakes.
Yes, and right along with your own interpretation, ignoring others as incorrect and treating yours as matter-of-fact.
Perhaps she was being threatening but you have not demonstrated her intent thoroughly. You haven't done much rationally here, dadudemon. It is frankly a fucking mess.
Genuinely scary stuff, because it demonstrates people should be careful when conducting arguments with you as you will misrepresent, alter, and micharacterize their perspective/opinions.
If that was truly the "very point of this thread", why did you bring it up after Robtard accused you of making a logical mistake once you had already openly participated on the very first page of this thread? Why not point out everyone involved in bringing Trump into the discussion or continuing it? The latter question's answer is obvious and I discussed it earlier. You made a mistake and tried to push attention away from that by trying to highlight Robtard as being the one who derailed this discussion or "made it about that." He's not. Everyone did, you included. I mean, even on the second page, you still continue the discussion that included Trump within this thread without issue. No, really. See here:
There isn't room for you, nor is there apparently room for a discussion that as thought-out, reasonable, and without manipulation if you're involved.
This was a shameful display, dadudemon. I'm disappointed, as I've argued in the past that you're not as bad as you used to be but you've seemingly developed into something worse. Without patronizing, I'd urge you to consider the points I've made here and possibly consider re-evaluating how you conduct yourself toward other people during debates.
Nice try but you're making the same mistake Robtard did by trying to force the topic to be about the point I never wanted to make:
Robtard's words:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.
My correction:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who enabled her creepy cheating sexual predator husband that lied about it than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.
Start from there.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Nov 20th, 2017 at 04:47 PM
KMC Community Forums
Nov 17th, 2017 10:31 PM
